Spring Break
Marriage amendment clarifies law
State should reserve definition for one man, one woman
Emily Hartwig
Issue date: 9/11/06 Section: Editorial/Opinion
Say you have an inclination toward alcoholism. Are you going to succumb to your weakness and drink yourself to death? Of course not. You will resist alcohol dependence at all costs. The same is true for those with a weakened sense of normal sexual desires.
I'm not going to hide the fact that many of my personal beliefs come from my religion, which goes hand-in-hand with a general sense of morality. After all, our founding fathers used morals and faith-based principles to establish this country.
As a Lutheran with a living faith firmly founded in God's Word, I have a hard time understanding so-called Christians that choose to ignore certain portions of the Bible. Specifically, portions they don't like.
Interested readers can look up passages like 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, which states that sinners - including "sexually immoral" and "homosexual offenders" - will not go to heaven. How much clearer can you get?
Choosing "no" on the ballot this fall violates both precedence and morality.
We can still make the fair choice and vote "yes."
I'm not going to hide the fact that many of my personal beliefs come from my religion, which goes hand-in-hand with a general sense of morality. After all, our founding fathers used morals and faith-based principles to establish this country.
As a Lutheran with a living faith firmly founded in God's Word, I have a hard time understanding so-called Christians that choose to ignore certain portions of the Bible. Specifically, portions they don't like.
Interested readers can look up passages like 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, which states that sinners - including "sexually immoral" and "homosexual offenders" - will not go to heaven. How much clearer can you get?
Choosing "no" on the ballot this fall violates both precedence and morality.
We can still make the fair choice and vote "yes."
Viewing Comments 1 - 9 of 9
Kerry Thomas
posted 9/11/06 @ 4:41 PM CST
The problem with the language of the proposed amendment is that is does not define "marriage." In legalese, it defines marriage as "...a marriage between. (Continued…)
Kristoffer Martin
posted 9/12/06 @ 2:06 PM CST
Thats just absurd, there is a difference between homosexuality and what you call "abnormal". If we are going to protect the rights of the people (something that this current administration has been doing poorly for the last six years) we must stand up for our rights. (Continued…)
Kate Casey
posted 9/12/06 @ 10:07 PM CST
I have to say that this article disappointed me. Obviously the author has never befriended a homosexual person otherwise she would have seen that they are indeed real people like you and me and thus deserve the same rights. (Continued…)
Tanya
posted 9/12/06 @ 11:23 PM CST
First off, I must say that homosexuality IS seen in various other species. It is not an "abnormal phenomenon" that only occurs in humans. It has been seen time and time again all over the animal kingdom and is not something that any educated person should ever refer to as wrong. (Continued…)
LJ Sommer
posted 9/14/06 @ 8:39 AM CST
I have to respond to Emily Hartwig's incredibly offensive, poorly researched, and misleading essay "Marriage amendment clarifies law". To equate alcoholism with gay relationships, and deem that gay people would be better off alone and celibate is amazingly narrow-minded and judgmental. (Continued…)
eichbear
Tony Eichberger
posted 9/14/06 @ 5:51 PM CST
Emily Hartwig has absolutely no credibility when addressing the amendment in her editorial, since she completely glosses over the fact that the proposed amendment would indeed prohibit same-sex civil unions IN ADDITION TO same-sex marriage. (Continued…)
bakerdrive
alumni jim
posted 9/18/06 @ 12:16 PM CST
The problem with this whole "marriage amendment" is that it is entirely political with no common sense anywhere in the discussion. The state Republicans have decided it is a way to lure Conservative voters to the polls to support them. (Continued…)
eichbear
Tony Eichberger
posted 9/19/06 @ 10:29 AM CST
I don't see how a legal argument could be made for marriages between adults and minors: because minors, not being of the legal age of 18, don't have the same consensual authority that 18+-year-olds have. (Continued…)
erica1016
Erica Banton
posted 9/20/06 @ 4:44 PM CST
The ignorance of Emily strikes again (remember Vagina Monologues...?). If hateful people would keep their mean overly-religious opinions to themselves our university would be a much more positive environment. (Continued…)
Post a Comment